Fight over Scana plant may hurt Duke Energy

haygoodfoafyga1359.blogspot.com
If the group is successful in its appeal tothe S.C. Supremew Court, it could force Duke to rethinmk its plans for the Lee plannednear Gaffney, S.C. At a Duke “will have to go back to the drawiny board” with S.C. lawmakers on a measurer to let Duke recover certain costs ofthe project, says Ellen Duke’s president of nuclear development. The courtr challenge is being made bythe . The group questionsa the constitutionality of a2007 S.C. law that lets utilitiezs recover some of their expensesd for constructing major power plants as they arebeingv built.
Ruff says the high cost and long constructiomn times for nuclear plants make recovery of some expenses durin construction aneconomic necessity. “This is not just Duke Energyh saying this,” she says. “The financial community is sayinvg clearly it is important to have this kind of certaintyt of recovery in place if there is going to be investmenyt innuclear energy.” The Friendsd of the Earth gave notice last week that it will appeao S.C. regulators’ approval of the V.C. Summet nuclear plant to the stateSupremde Court.
The appeal will be submitterd bylate June, says Tom the Friends of the Earth’s southeastern nuclear campaign Friends of the Eartyh opposed letting Duke recove r some of its planning costs for the Lee plantr when S.C. regulators considered that issue last But thegroup didn’t appeao that ruling. The Summer station projectg calls for adding two nuclear reactors to an existinf plantin Jenkinsville, S.C. The expansioj is expected to costabout $9.9 billion. The S.C. Energy Usersw Committee, a group that represents industriakl customers, also is appealing the state’se approval of the project. Friends of the Eartuh contendsthe S.C. law on cost recovery should bestrucj down.
Bob Guild, the group’s attorney, says the legislationn goes too far in shifting the risk in building nuclear plants from utility investore toutility customers. “The law as interpreted by the commissiob gives the utilities a blank he contends. Once the commissiobn approves a project, he says, customerzs have no way of challenging whether the money is spentprudentlhy — even if the plant isn’t completed. But Ruff says the S.C. law allowsa specific spending to be challenged later in the That assures utilities they can recover theifr prudent spendingon construction. She says Duke hasn’ty decided whether to seek to participate in the Summerfcourt case.